Analysis of articles

Analysis of articles

• 1.
  Keith Schemel Professor Blanco FirstYear Seminar 12 February 2014 Analysis of Articles The gun control debate is, and will likely always be, a heated debate in the political and social realm of America. Both sides of the argument have sound reasons for why they back what they believe, and neither side appears to budge anytime soon on their opinions. After reading the articles, Gun Control: An Overview, Controlling Gun Violence is more Important than Controlling Guns,and Gun Control Saves Lives on Point of View, there appeared to be several motivating factors from each side for why they believe what they do. The underlying issue being debated in all the articles is whether or not gun control legislation should be strengthened, or remain as is. In the first reading, Gun Control: An Overview, it provided the reader with unbiased facts about guns, what specific classes of weapons are, crime statistics relating to the weapons, and what laws have been implemented to either restrict or relax gun laws throughout the nation. While in the other two readings, Controlling Gun Violence is more Important than Controlling Guns, and Gun Control Saves Lives produce bias opinions, opposing and advocating gun regulations respectively, nonetheless their underlying cause is gun control. According to those in opposition of stricter gun laws, possible disadvantages of stricter legislation is the loss of freedom guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States
• 2.
  Constitution. Furthermore, self-defensewill be entirely dependent on the victim’s bodily strength, which would allow criminals to run loose abusing others. Gun advocates, according to this specific article realize that the second amendment has lost some of its influence since communities are govern by local police forces, regulated militia’s (National Guard), and military forces, however since it is part of the Bill of Rights it is an undeniable right for Americans. According to supporters of stricter gun control, as seen in the article Gun Control Saves Lives, are worried that if more legislation is not passed then more senseless killings will occur. For instance the article mentioned the 2007 Virginia Tech University massacre which killed over thirty college students. Furthermore, the article states that 30,000 deaths in America each year are from gun violence, and the article states that the abolition of the gun market would end the violence. Supporters of gun control see that taking guns off the street is the means to then end of senseless violence that has stricken America. Fallacies that emerge in the Gun Control Saves Lives argument is the stance that if guns are eradicated then violence will stop. This is simply not true, perhaps the number of 30,000 deaths via gun violence might go down, but it has the same probability of going up. Just because guns would become illegal does not mean they cannot be obtained, it would be no different from selling cocaine, or obtaining child pornography. Just because it is illegal does not mean it does not exist. Violence will continue throughout the nation, as knives, switchblades, and other weapons would still be used to take the place of guns, if guns were not available to an assailant. In the Controlling Gun Violence is more Important than Controlling Guns, fallacies emerged when the article states that in order to combat a violent act is with violence, which is very often not the case, unless under an extreme scenario such as rape or attempted murder. There is a
• 3.
  reason that theHammurabi codes of justice are no longer instituted in a civilized society, and that is because it is unjust. Alternative policies that have been proposed referring to the gun control debate are several acts passed by congress, in Controlling Gun Violence is more Important than Controlling Guns, the second amendment is brought up repeatedly to justify the right for Americans to wield guns. Furthermore, The Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 provides broad regulations of the firearm industry, including the prohibition of the sale of guns to specified persons such as minors, drug users, or those with a criminal record or a history of mental disorders. And in 2004, a federal ban on assault weapons was lifted and since then there has been heated discussions and efforts to either maintain or disregard the ban. Future policies in place are a more extended background check, as well as the inability to own an assault rifle, or a weapon that holds more than twelve rounds. There are many implications on families in our society from this debate. Many families have lost loved ones to gun violence, and their opinions on the matter can go either way. Personally, growing up in a politically corrupted, high crime rate town in Southern New Jersey, I wished I had a gun on me at all time to feel safe from gang members, and corrupted officials.